Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Limited Scope of Interference under Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Financial Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that reaffirms the sanctity of arbitration proceedings, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging an Arbitral Award in a financial dispute involving Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd and Gunocean Inc. The bench, comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, upheld the Arbitral Award dated 20.02.2019, which had directed the appellants to pay substantial sums with interest and costs to the respondent.

The judgment, pronounced on January 23, 2024, emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards. The Court observed, "Under Section 34 of the Act, scope of interference by the courts is very limited and only if there is any patent illegality in the Arbitral Award, then only it is required to be touched upon" (Para 35). This statement highlights the judiciary's respect for the arbitration process and its outcomes, provided they adhere to legal standards and public policy.

The dispute originated from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed between the parties, involving financial transactions and commission payments. The appellants, Arjun Mall Retail Holdings Pvt Ltd, and its directors faced allegations of defaulting on payments as per the MoU. Responding to these allegations, the appellants contended that the MoU was forged, and the Arbitral Award violated public policy. However, these claims were dismissed by the Court, which found no evidence of forgery or violation of public policy norms.

The respondent, Gunocean Inc., accused the appellants of habitual defaulting and making false averments. The Court noted the appellants' history of legal troubles and found no merit in their challenge to the Arbitral Award.

This decision is a testament to the Indian judiciary's approach towards arbitration as a mode of dispute resolution. By limiting its intervention to cases of patent illegality, the Court has sent a strong message about its commitment to uphold the decisions made within the arbitration framework, respecting the autonomy of the arbitration process.

Date of Decision: 23 January 2024

ARJUN MALL RETAIL HOLDINGS PVT LTD & ORS. VS  GUNOCEN INC.

Similar News